| 1 |
On Friday 03 February 2006 22:00, MIkey wrote: |
| 2 |
> Each server type (web-servers, dns-servers, etc..) gets its own meta |
| 3 |
> package via the overlays that determines what apps are compiled. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
I intended to do that - great idea and heads to a more standard set of server |
| 6 |
installs - that's certainly where I want to be |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> Got all that |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Yeah - that's fantastic, although one issue does remain... |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
if you have 10 web servers, then they all use the same 'build profile' or |
| 13 |
whatever y ou called them, that's fantastic. However... what if on 2 of them, |
| 14 |
we want apache 'threads' enabled, and on 4 of them we want hardened PHP |
| 15 |
patches, but we don't want it on all of them due to some issue with the patch |
| 16 |
(this is all hypotetical). Lets also pretend that these 2 exceptions |
| 17 |
overlap, 1 threaded server, 1 threaded with hardened php, 3 hardened php, and |
| 18 |
5 'standard' web servers. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
This means there's now 4 profiles, and 4 lots of build profiles to maintain, |
| 21 |
99% of the packages in these build profiles will use identical use flags, |
| 22 |
only apache and php will be different - your system doens't allow for these |
| 23 |
exceptions very nearly, which is my biggest concern. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I do entirly agree that standardisation is the way to go , but I want to be |
| 26 |
able to neatly handle the exceptions - because unfortunatly, they will |
| 27 |
happen. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Many thanks for your reply, it's certainly food for thought. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Kind Regards, |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Ian |
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-server@g.o mailing list |
Archives